D1-S3 - Santos - BSDS Intro

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE DETAILED DESIGN AND TENDER ASSISTANCE OF THE METRO MANILA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS PRIORITY BRIDGES SEISMIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (MMPBSIP) JICA LOAN NO. PH-P260
REGIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM FOR THE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COMPONENT

DPWH Bridge Seismic Design Specifications (BSDS) Application to Seismic Design of Bridges
Introduction to BSDS:
Design Philosophy and Concept
Dr. Jovito C. Santos
DPWH CENTRAL OFFICE

MAY 02-04, 2018
1
Contents
1. Background in the Development of BSDS
1-1 Philippine Seismicity and Bridge Vulnerability
1-2 Issues Policies on BSDS Development
2. Outline of BSDS
2-1 Purpose of Specifications
2-2 Scope of Specifications
2-3 Seismic Design Philosophy
2-4 Loads and Load Resistance Factors
2-5 Design Flowcharts
REGIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM : DPWH BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS (BSDS) APPLICATION TO SEISMIC DESIGN OF BRIDGES 2
REGIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM FOR THE
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COMPONENT
DPWH BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN

SPECIFICATIONS (BSDS)
APPLICATIONTO SEISMIC DESIGN
OF BRIDGES
DPWH Central
Davao
Baguio
Cebu
May 2018 1.
Background in the
CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE DETAILED
DESIGN AND TENDER ASSISTANCE OF THE
METRO MANILA PRIORITY BRIDGES
SEISMIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Development of Bridge
(MMPBSIP) JICA LOAN NO. PH-P260
Seismic Design
Specifications (BSDS)
3
 Large Magnitude of Earthquake as high as magnitude M7.9 have been
experienced in the Philippines either causing major damages or
resulting to collapse of bridges.
 The year 1990 became the major turning point in seismic design of
bridges in the Philippines after the North Luzon Earthquake in July
1990.
 Currently the DPWH is exerting much efforts to improve the seismic
performance of bridges under large-scale earthquakes and have
identified the need to improve both the design and construction
practices in order to meet the demands of larger earthquakes forces
and the challenges in the advancement of engineering technology.
REGIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM : DPWH BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS (BSDS) APPLICATION TO SEISMIC DESIGN OF BRIDGES Dr. JC Santos 4
1-1 Philippine Seismicity and Bridge Vulnerability
North Luzon Earthquake Negros Oriental Earthquake Bohol Earthquake (M7.2)

(M7.9) July 16, 1990 (M6.9) Feb 6, 2012 Oct.15, 2013
Major Earthquakes
No Name of Earthquake Time Mag. Remarks
1 Casiguran Eq. Aug 2,1968 M7.3
2 Ragay Gulf Eq. Mar 17, 1973 M7.0 Collapse (Sumulong Br.)
Collapse (Quirino Br.)
3 Moro Gulf Eq. Aug 17, 1976 M7.9
Fatalities: 8,000
4 Laoag Eq. Aug 17, 1983 M6.5
5 Bohol Eq. Feb 8, 1990 M6.8 Collapse (Jagna-Duero Br.)
6 Panay Eq. June 14, 1990 M7.1 Collapse (4 bridges)
Collapse (many bridges)
7 North Luzon Eq. July 16, 1990 M7.9
Fatalities: 1,621
8 Mindoro Eq. Nov 15, 1994 M7.1 Damaged (24 bridges)
9 Bohol Eq. May 27, 1996 M5.6
10 Bayugan Eq. June 7, 1999 M5.1
11 Palimbang Eq. Mar 6, 2002 M6.8 Fatalities: 11
12 Masbate Eq. Feb 15, 2003 M6.2 Fatalities: 1
Collapse (several bridges)
13 Negros Oriental Eq. Feb 6, 2012 M6.9
Fatalities: 41
14 Eastern Samar Eq. Aug 31, 2012 M7.6 Fatalities: 1
15 Bohol Earthquake Oct 15, 2013 M7.2 Fatalities – 222 (NDCC Oct.31)
Issues on Bridge Vulnerability
 Prior to 1990, bridges are designed with minimal or no seismic
design considerations
 Lack of shear confinement reinforcement and member strength
 Insufficient seat width and absence of restrainers or fall-down
prevention device
 Large movement due to lack of substructure stiffness and capacity
(including foundation)
 The potential for soil liquefaction in the design of bridges prior to 1990
earthquake was not thoroughly verified
 After 1990, bridges are designed using AASHTO response spectra

(Force-Based Method) with 2- zone factors of 0.2 & 0.40
 No specific desired level of seismic safety and serviceability performance
at different earthquake levels
1-2 Issues and Policies on BSDS Development
(a) Localizing the Seismic Hazard
 The previous design requirements employ the 2-zone
PGA Map (0.2 and 0.4) covering the entire country.
 This was applied in the absence of a more thorough
analysis of the sources of seismic excitation with
corresponding return periods.
 Consistency with the latest AASHTO LRFD and the
1,000-year return earthquake is indicated
 Need to update the Seismic Hazard Map to indicate

earthquake sources and required return period
Issues and Policies on BSDS Development
(b) Design Acceleration Response Spectra and Site
Effects
3A3
S p e c tra( g al)
　　　Soil Type-Ⅰ S=1.0
 The previous practice is to apply the AASHTO 1.2AS
　　　Soil Type-Ⅱ S=1.2
2.5A T(2/3) 　　　Soil Type-Ⅲ S=1.5
acceleration response spectra with corresponding 　　　Soil-Type-Ⅳ S=2.0
2A2
AASHTO soil types
Response
 Current AASHTO LRFD utilizes a 3-point response
1A1
spectrum to establish the design spectra
A c c elera tio n
 Philippine rock and ground condition is similar to ｈ＝0.05
Japan ground condition and relates better than 0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
AASHTO soil types Period T (sec)
 Need to localize soil types and site effects in

establishing design response acceleration spectra
(c) Seismic Performance Requirements
 The current design requirement stipulates a ”no
collapse” response to major/large earthquake
 However, there is no specific requirement for
immediate restoration of bridge function and degree of
repairability
 Bridges expected to play a role in the disaster recovery
should remain functional in the event of the design
earthquake
 Need to establish a more definite seismic performance

requirements based on bridge function and
occupational classification
(d) Bridge Fall-Down Prevention System

 Experience from previous large earthquakes have
shown bridge spans falling down from bridge
supports caused by relatively large displacements
 Early design indicates insufficient seat length and
lack of efficiency of restrainers to function
collectively in the event of large earthquakes
 Need to provide a fall-down prevention system

with multiple mechanisms that can complement
each other efficiently during unexpectedly large
displacements
(e) Ground Liquefaction
 Performance of Philippine bridges in the 1990
North Luzon EQ, 2012 Negros Oriental EQ and
2013 Bohol EQ indicated vulnerability to the
effects of seismically unstable ground (including
ground liquefaction and lateral spreading)
 Many bridges collapsed due to ground liquefaction
and forces caused by lateral spreading of the
ground
 Need to provide design specific provisions against

ground liquefaction and lateral spreading based on
established and tested design specifications
REGIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM FOR THE
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COMPONENT
DPWH BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN

SPECIFICATIONS (BSDS)
APPLICATIONTO SEISMIC DESIGN
OF BRIDGES
DPWH Central
Davao
Baguio
Cebu
May 2018
2.
CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE DETAILED
DESIGN AND TENDER ASSISTANCE OF THE
METRO MANILA PRIORITY BRIDGES
SEISMIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Outline of Bridge Seismic
(MMPBSIP) JICA LOAN NO. PH-P260
Design Specifications
(BSDS)
13
Vol. 6 Public DPWH Bridge Design Specifications

DPWH Design Guidelines, Criteria and
Buildings
Vol. 5 Bridge Design
Vol. 4 Highway
Design
Standards (DGCS), 2015
Vol. 3 Water
Engineering
Project
Vol. 2
Engineering
Surveys
Vol. 1 Introduction
and Overview
 Covers design for  Covers mainly seismic

construction, alteration, design of bridges based on
repair and retrofitting LRFD seismic design
highway bridges and related method
highway structures  Use of localized seismic
 Earthquake effects shall be in response acceleration
accordance with BSDS contour map coefficients
Establish the design provisions for bridges that will minimize

1 susceptibility to damage from earthquakes and guarantee the
required seismic performance level requirements of bridges,
Establish the design earthquake forces considering the local

2 conditions inherent in the Philippines, and
Provide guidance to the DPWH engineers and the engineering

professionals in the seismic design of bridges that will set the
3 minimum requirements for seismic design integrity and safety
under a large earthquake.
1. Use of AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) methodology to
ensure structural survival of a bridge during major earthquake
2. LRFD Extreme Event Limit State for Earthquake Loading (Extreme Event 1)
3. Applicability to new bridges of conventional structural forms and

construction methods
4. Sets the minimum requirements for seismic performance to ensure
structural stability that will provide public safety
5. Requirements for unstable ground conditions/liquefaction, etc. and
unseating/fall-down of superstructure is specified.
6. Reference is made to AASHTO LRFD, JRA Bridge Seismic Design and
AASHTO Seismic Bridge Design
Contents of Section 1: Introduction
BSDS Section 2: Definitions and Notations
Section 3: General Requirements
Section 4: Analysis Requirements
Section 5: Design Requirements
Section 6: Effects of Seismically Unstable Ground
Section 7: Unseating Prevention System
Section 8: Requirements for Seismically Isolated
Bridges
Outline of BSDS
Section Contents
• Brief introduction of BSDS development
• Purpose, Scope and Design Philosophy
Section 1: Introduction
• Loads and Load Factors
• Seismic Design Flowcharts
Section 2: Definitions and • Definitions and explanation of terms

Notations • Explanation of symbols, abbreviations and parameters
• Applicability of Specifications
• Bridge Operational Classification
• Seismic Performance Requirements
• Seismic Hazard
Section 3: General • Ground Types Definitions (Site Class Definition) and Site
Requirements Factors
• Design Response Spectrum
• Seismic Performance Zones
• Response Modification Factors
• Temporary Bridge and Stage Construction
Outline of BSDS
Section Contents
• Analysis for Single-Span and Multi-Span Bridges
• Single-Mode, Multi-Mode Spectral and Time History
Methods of Analysis
Section 4: Analysis • Mathematical Model, Coefficients of Subgrade Reaction,
Requirements Foundation Spring Constants
• Dynamic Analysis Requirements
• Minimum Seat Length Requirements
• P-D Requirements
• Combination of Seismic Force Effects
• Calculation of Design Forces
• Seismic Performance Zone 1, Zone 2, Zones 3 and 4
• Foundation Requirements - Spread Foundation,
Section 5: Design
• Pile Foundation
Requirements
• Longitudinal Restrainers
• Hold-Down Devices
• Bearing Support System
• Gap Between Girders
Outline of BSDS
Section Contents
• Geotechnical Parameters of Extremely Soft Layer and
Sandy Layer Prone to Liquefaction -
• Assessment of Extremely Soft Soil Layer
Section 6: Effects of • Assessment of Soil Liquefaction
Seismically Unstable • Reduction of Geotechnical Parameters
Ground • Verification of Seismic Performance of Foundations for
Liquefaction-Induced Lateral Spreading
• Calculation of Lateral Force by Liquefaction-Induced
Lateral Spreading
• Seat Length
Section 7: Unseating • Unseating Prevention Device
Prevention System • Structure to Prevent the Superstructure from Settling
• Structure to Limit Excessive Displacement
Section 8: Requirements for • Performance Verification of Seismically-Isolated Bridges

• Analytical Model of Isolation Bearings
Seismically Isolated • Performance Requirement for Isolation Bearing
Bridges • Other Structures for Reducing Earthquake Effects
2-3 Seismic Design Philosophy
Compliance with Seismic Performance and Operational Class
Ensure compliance with: Design Concepts
 3 Levels of Seismic
 Compliance with
Performance
DPWH D.O. 75 Design Requirements
 3 Bridge
 Selection of  LRFD Extreme Event 1 limit
Operational Class appropriate bridge type state
and earthquake
resisting system  Consideration of site and
ground conditions (unstable
ground/liquefaction)
 Level of earthquake ground
motion (2-Levels)
 Seismic hazard (maps), EQ
forces, Response Spectra
 Unseating prevention, etc.
Seismic Performance Level
SPL-2 SPL-3 Seismic Performance
SPL-1
Elastic Limit Repairable Limit Ductility Capacity Limit Level
Prevent Damage Limited Damage for Prevent Critical Damage
Function Recovery
Level 1 Earthquake Ground
Level 2 Ground Motion
Ground Motion Motion (EGM)
OC-I, II & III OC-I & OC-II OC-III Bridge Operational
Classification
Linear Nonlinear
(Elastic Range)
Lateral Force
Members behave Concrete cracks, Buckling of rebars, large Member failure, structure
elastically reinforcement yields deformation collapse
Lateral Displacement
Occupational Classification (OC)
Operational
Serviceability
Classification Description
Performance
(OC)
 Must remain open to all Important bridges that meet:
OC-I traffic after the design  Bridges without detours or alternative route (e.g.
(Critical Bridges) earthquake (1,000-year connecting islands or without alternative route)
return)  Bridges on roads and highways considered to be part
 As required by DPWH to of the regional disaster prevention route,
be open to emergency  Bridges with span ≥ 100m,
vehicles and vehicles for  Non-conventional bridges or special bridge types such
security/defense as suspension, cable stayed, arch, etc.
purposes immediately  Other bridge forms such as double-deck bridges,
after an earthquake overcrossings or overbridges that could cause
larger than the design secondary disaster when collapsed,
earthquake.  As specified by the DPWH or those having jurisdiction
on the bridge.
Occupational Classification (OC)
Operational
Serviceability
Classification Description
Performance
(OC)
 As a minimum, be Bridges located along:
OC-II open to emergency  Pan-Philippine Highway,
(Essential Bridges) vehicles and for  Expressways (Urban and Inter-urban),
security/defense  Major/Primary national arterial highways (North-South
purposes within a Backbone, East-West Lateral, Other Roads of Strategic
short period after Importance),
the design  Provincial, City and Municipal roads in view of disaster
earthquake, i.e. prevention and traffic strategy.
1,000 year return Additionally, bridges that meet:
period event.  Bridges with detours greater than 25 kilometers
 As specified by the DPWH or those having jurisdiction on
the bridge
OC-III  All other than OC-I  All other bridges not classified as OC-I or OC-II
(Other) or OC-II
2-Level Seismic Hazard
100-year
Return Hazard
Map (BSDS)
(PGA & Response
Acceleration
Coefficient)
PGA 0.2 sec 1.0 sec
1,000-year
Return Hazard
Map (BSDS)
Previous 2-Zone (PGA & Response
Acceleration
Hazard Map Coefficient)
PGA 0.2 sec 1.0 sec
Seismic Hazard (Design Spectra)
3A3
S p e c tra( g al)
　　　Soil Type-Ⅰ S=1.0 SDS = Fa SS

1.2AS
　　　Soil Type-Ⅱ S=1.2
Elastic Seismic Coefficient, Cm

2.5A T(2/3) 　　　Soil Type-Ⅲ S=1.5
　　　Soil-Type-Ⅳ S=2.0
2A2 Csm = SD1/Tm
Response
SD1 = Fv S1
AS = Fpga PGA
1A1
A c c elera tio n
To = 0.2 TS
ｈ＝0.05
TS = SD1/SDS
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Period T (sec)
0 0.2 1.0
Period, Tm (sec)
Previous DPWH Design Spectra BSDS Design Spectra
(AASHTO Normalized Spectra) (Using 3 Seismic Hazard Maps)
Ground Types (Site Class)
Ground Characteristic Value

Description
Type of Ground, TG (s)
Type I TG < 0.2 Good diluvial ground and rock
Diluvial and alluvial ground not
Type II 0.2TG < 0.6
belonging to Type I and Type III
Type III 0.6TG Soft ground and alluvial ground
Hi n Consider effects
The characteristic value of TG  4 of unstable soil
ground, TG is defined by: i 1 Vsi
layer
Unseating Prevention System
 In the event of
an extremely
large and
unpredictable Restrainer (Unseating Prevention Device)
displacements,
Deck Slab
a bridge fall-
down system
with the aim of Excessive
a multiple Displacement
Limiting Device Girder
mechanism that (EDLD)
compliments
each other is Abutment
proposed in the Settling Prevention
BSDS Seat Length Device (Limit Gaps
Bearing Support between Structures)
Devices to Reduce Seismic Effects
 Devices or structures to reduce the seismic effects on
bridges (forces and displacements) may include: seismic
isolation bearings, energy absorbing devices (dampers),
etc.
 Aim is to reduce the superstructure inertia forces
through lengthening of the natural period and Laminated Rubber Bearing
improving damping
 Seismic isolation is not normally adopted to bridges with
Upper Lead
very soft soil, flexible substructures with long Plate Core
fundamental period, or those with uplift at bearing
supports (Negative Effects).
 Adopted devices shall be simple in mechanism with
Rubber
sufficient gaps to allow for the device to function Bearing
Inner
Plate
properly without contact with other members.
Lead Rubber Bearing
Seismically Unstable Ground Condition
 Effects of the following unstable ground
to be taken into account to verify
seismic performance of the bridge:
 Extremely soft soil layer for seismic
design
 Sandy layer affecting bridge
performance due to lateral spreading
 Geotechnical parameters for seismic
design shall be reduced when ground is
seismically unstable
 However, to ensure seismic
performance of the bridge, verification
shall be done for stable and unstable
ground conditions
2-4 Loads and Load Resistance Factors
Extreme Event I : gp (DC+DW+DD+EL+PS+EH+EV+ES+CR+SH) + 1.0 (WA) +
1.0 (FR) + gEQ (LL) + 1.0(EQ)
Permanent Loads Transient Loads
 Dead Load of Components,

 Earthquake
Wearing Surface, Utilities
 Vehicular Live Load
 Downdrag
 Water and Stream Pressure
 Locked-in Force
 Friction
 Secondary Post-tensioning
 Hor/Vert. Earth Pressure,  gp as defined in AASHTO LRFD
Surcharge
 gEQ = 0.50
 Creep
 Shrinkage  f = 1.0 (unless stated)
2-5 Design Flow Charts
APPLICABILITY OF SPECIFICATIONS Article 3.1
PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND DESIGN
DETERMINE: Seismic Performance Requirements, Seismic Hazard, Site Effects and

Site Factors, Ground Acceleration Coefficients and Design Response Spectrum,
Seismic Performance Zone. Articles 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7
YES
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE ZONE 1?
NO
DETERMINE BRIDGE OPERATIONAL CLASSIFICATION Article 3.2
DETERMINE RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTORS Article 3.8
POTENTIAL FOR LIQUEFACTION? YES

Article 6.2
NO
Seismic SEISMIC PERFORMANCE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE SEISMIC PERFORMANCE
Design 1 ZONE 1 (SPZ-1) ZONE 2, 3, 4 (SPZ-2, 3, 4) (except ZONE 2, 3, 4 (SPZ-2, 3, 4)
(except for Single Span
for Single Span Bridge)
Procedure 2 Bridge)
3 4
Design Flow Charts 4
3 GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
Seismic (Reduce Parameters for Analysis)
Design Article 6.2
Procedure PERFORM BRIDGE ANALYSIS PERFORM BRIDGE ANALYSIS
Article 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 Article 4.3, 4.4, 4.5
(except for Single Span (except for Single Span Bridge)
2 Bridge)
DETERMINE DESIGN FORCES
Zone 2 - Article 5.3.3
DETERMINE DESIGN FORCES Zone 3 & 4 - Article 5.3.4
DETERMINE DESIGN FORCES Zone 2 - Article 5.3.3 Single Span - Article 5.3.1
Article 5.3.2 Zone 3 & 4 - Article 5.3.4
Single Span - Article 5.3.1 LIQUEFACTION-INDUCED
LATERAL SPREADING DESIGN
Article 6.3
DETERMINE DESIGN DETERMINE DESIGN DETERMINE DESIGN
DISPLACEMENTS/SEAT LENGTH DISPLACEMENTS/SEAT LENGTH DISPLACEMENTS/SEAT LENGTH
Article 4.6 and 7.2 Article 4.6 and 7.2 Article 4.6 and 7.2
1 DESIGN BRIDGE COMPONENTS
IS BRIDGE BRIDGE DESIGN

RESIZE COMPONENTS
ADEQUATE? COMPLETE
Design Flow Charts
Seismic
Detailing
Design Flow Charts
Substructure and Foundation

Thank You
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE DETAILED DESIGN AND TENDER ASSISTANCE OF THE METRO MANILA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS PRIORITY BRIDGES SEISMIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (MMPBSIP) JICA LOAN NO. PH-P260
REGIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM FOR THE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COMPONENT

DPWH Bridge Seismic Design Specifications (BSDS) Application to Seismic Design of Bridges
Introduction to BSDS:
Design Philosophy and Concept
Dr. Jovito C. Santos
DPWH CENTRAL OFFICE

MAY 02-04, 2018
37

D1-S3 - Santos - BSDS Intro

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

D1-S3 - Santos - BSDS Intro

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE DETAILED DESIGN AND TENDER ASSISTANCE OF THE METRO MANILA

REGIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM FOR THE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COMPONENT

DPWH CENTRAL OFFICE

DPWH BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN

North Luzon Earthquake Negros Oriental Earthquake Bohol Earthquake (M7.2)

 After 1990, bridges are designed using AASHTO response spectra

 Need to update the Seismic Hazard Map to indicate

Japan ground condition and relates better than 0

 Need to localize soil types and site effects in

 Need to establish a more definite seismic performance

(d) Bridge Fall-Down Prevention System

 Need to provide a fall-down prevention system

 Need to provide design specific provisions against

DPWH BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN

Vol. 6 Public DPWH Bridge Design Specifications

 Covers design for  Covers mainly seismic

Establish the design provisions for bridges that will minimize

Establish the design earthquake forces considering the local

Provide guidance to the DPWH engineers and the engineering

3. Applicability to new bridges of conventional structural forms and

Section 2: Definitions and • Definitions and explanation of terms

Section 8: Requirements for • Performance Verification of Seismically-Isolated Bridges

Soil Type-Ⅰ S=1.0 SDS = Fa SS

Elastic Seismic Coefficient, Cm

Ground Characteristic Value

Permanent Loads Transient Loads

 Dead Load of Components,

PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND DESIGN

DETERMINE: Seismic Performance Requirements, Seismic Hazard, Site Effects and

DETERMINE RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTORS Article 3.8

POTENTIAL FOR LIQUEFACTION? YES

1 DESIGN BRIDGE COMPONENTS

IS BRIDGE BRIDGE DESIGN

Substructure and Foundation

REGIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM FOR THE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COMPONENT

DPWH CENTRAL OFFICE

S-ar putea să vă placă și

　　　Soil Type-Ⅰ S=1.0 SDS = Fa SS